Feature-specific nutrient management of onion (Allium cepa) using machine learning and compositional methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While onion cultivars, irrigation and soil and crop management have been given much attention in Brazil to boost onion yields, nutrient management at field scale is still challenging due to large dosage uncertainty. Our objective was to develop an accurate feature-based fertilization model for onion crops. We assembled climatic, edaphic, and managerial features as well as tissue tests into a database of 1182 observations from multi-environment fertilizer trials conducted during 13 years in southern Brazil. The complexity of onion cropping systems was captured by machine learning (ML) methods. The RReliefF ranking algorithm showed that the split-N dosage and soil tests for micronutrients and S were the most relevant features to predict bulb yield. The decision-tree random forest and extreme gradient boosting models were accurate to predict bulb yield from the relevant predictors (R 2 > 90%). As shown by the gain ratio, foliar nutrient standards for nutritionally balanced and high-yielding specimens producing > 50 Mg bulb ha −1 set apart by the ML classification models differed among cultivars. Cultivar × environment interactions support documenting local nutrient diagnosis. The split-N dosage was the most relevant controllable feature to run future universality tests set to assess models’ ability to generalize to growers’ fields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".